[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_11194.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who’s Afraid of Policy Experiments?

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Dur
  • Arjan Non
  • Paul Prottung
  • Benedetta Ricci
Abstract
In many public policy areas, randomized policy experiments can greatly contribute to our knowledge of the effects of policies and can thus help to improve public policy. However, policy experiments are not very common. This paper studies whether a lack of appreciation for policy experiments among voters may be the reason for this. Collecting survey data representative of the Dutch electorate, we find clear evidence contradicting this view. Voters strongly support policy experimentation and particularly so when they do not hold a strong opinion about the policy. In a subsequent survey experiment among a selected group of Dutch politicians, we find that politicians conform their expressed opinion about policy experiments to what we tell them the actual opinion of voters is.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Dur & Arjan Non & Paul Prottung & Benedetta Ricci, 2024. "Who’s Afraid of Policy Experiments?," CESifo Working Paper Series 11194, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_11194
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp11194.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefano DellaVigna & Woojin Kim & Elizabeth Linos, 2024. "Bottlenecks for Evidence Adoption," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 132(8), pages 2748-2789.
    2. Jonas Hjort & Diana Moreira & Gautam Rao & Juan Francisco Santini, 2021. "How Research Affects Policy: Experimental Evidence from 2,150 Brazilian Municipalities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(5), pages 1442-1480, May.
    3. Millner, Antony & Ollivier, Hélène & Simon, Leo, 2014. "Policy experimentation, political competition, and heterogeneous beliefs," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 84-96.
    4. Kalla, Joshua L. & Porter, Ethan, 2021. "Correcting Bias in Perceptions of Public Opinion Among American Elected Officials: Results from Two Field Experiments," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(4), pages 1792-1800, October.
    5. Shaoda Wang & David Y. Yang, 2021. "Policy Experimentation in China: the Political Economy of Policy Learning," NBER Working Papers 29402, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Gary Charness & Anya Samek & Jeroen Ven, 2022. "What is considered deception in experimental economics?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 385-412, April.
    7. Ernesto Dal Bó & Pedro Dal Bó & Erik Eyster, 2018. "The Demand for Bad Policy when Voters Underappreciate Equilibrium Effects," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(2), pages 964-998.
    8. repec:feb:artefa:0106 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Steven Callande & Bård Harstad, 2015. "Experimentation in Federal Systems," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(2), pages 951-1002.
    10. Rachel Glennerster & Kudzai Takavarasha, 2013. "Running Randomized Evaluations: A Practical Guide," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10085.
    11. John List, 2008. "Informed consent in social science," Artefactual Field Experiments 00086, The Field Experiments Website.
    12. Fischer, Mira & Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Werner, Katharina & Zeidler, Helen, 2024. "The E-word – On the public acceptance of experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    13. Naurin, Elin & Öhberg, Patrik, 2021. "Ethics in Elite Experiments: A Perspective of Officials and Voters," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(2), pages 890-898, April.
    14. Dur, Robert A J, 2001. "Why Do Policy Makers Stick to Inefficient Decisions?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 107(3-4), pages 221-234, June.
    15. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    16. Broockman, David E. & Skovron, Christopher, 2018. "Bias in Perceptions of Public Opinion among Political Elites," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(3), pages 542-563, August.
    17. Vivalt, Eva & Coville, Aidan, 2023. "How do policymakers update their beliefs?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    18. Robert Mislavsky & Berkeley Dietvorst & Uri Simonsohn, 2020. "Critical Condition: People Don’t Dislike a Corporate Experiment More Than They Dislike Its Worst Condition," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(6), pages 1092-1104, November.
    19. Andreas Bernecker & Pierre C. Boyer & Christina Gathmann, 2021. "The Role of Electoral Incentives for Policy Innovation: Evidence from the US Welfare Reform," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 26-57, May.
    20. Carattini, Stefano & Baranzini, Andrea & Lalive, Rafael, 2018. "Is Taxing Waste a Waste of Time? Evidence from a Supreme Court Decision," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 131-151.
    21. Corduneanu-Huci, Cristina & Dorsch, Michael T. & Maarek, Paul, 2021. "The politics of experimentation: Political competition and randomized controlled trials," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 1-21.
    22. Yokoo, Hide-Fumi & 横尾, 英史, 2020. "Ethics of randomized field experiments: Evidence from a randomized survey experiment," Discussion Papers 2020-07, Graduate School of Economics, Hitotsubashi University.
    23. Karolin Soontjens & Julie Sevenans, 2022. "Electoral incentives make politicians respond to voter preferences: Evidence from a survey experiment with members of Parliament in Belgium," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(5), pages 1125-1139, September.
    24. Steven Callander & Patrick Hummel, 2014. "Preemptive Policy Experimentation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(4), pages 1509-1528, July.
    25. Bruno Strulovici, 2010. "Learning While Voting: Determinants of Collective Experimentation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(3), pages 933-971, May.
    26. Butler, Daniel M. & Nickerson, David W., 2011. "Can Learning Constituency Opinion Affect How Legislators Vote? Results from a Field Experiment," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 6(1), pages 55-83, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xie, Yinxi & Xie, Yang, 2017. "Machiavellian experimentation," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 685-711.
    2. Bowen, Renee & Hwang, Ilwoo & Krasa, Stefan, 2022. "Personal power dynamics in bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    3. Sebastian Blesse & Philipp Lergetporer & Justus Nover & Katharina Werner, 2023. "Transparency and Policy Competition: Experimental Evidence from German Citizens and Politicians," Munich Papers in Political Economy 27, Munich School of Politics and Public Policy and the School of Management at the Technical University of Munich.
    4. Antony Millner & Hélène Ollivier, 2016. "Beliefs, Politics, and Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 226-244.
    5. Grosch, Kerstin & Haeckl, Simone & Rau, Holger & Preuss, Paul, 2023. "A Guide to Conducting School Experiments: Expert Insights and Best Practices for Effective Implementation," UiS Working Papers in Economics and Finance 2023/2, University of Stavanger.
    6. Hwang, Ilwoo, 2023. "Policy experimentation with repeated elections," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 623-644.
    7. Alonso, Ricardo & Câmara, Odilon, 2016. "Political disagreement and information in elections," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 390-412.
    8. Doruk Cetemen & Can Urgun & Leeat Yariv, 2023. "Collective Progress: Dynamics of Exit Waves," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 131(9), pages 2402-2450.
    9. Hwang, Ilwoo & Krasa, Stefan, 2023. "Leadership ability and agenda choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 179-192.
    10. Janne Tukiainen & Sebastian Blesse & Albrecht Bohne & Leonardo M. Giuffrida & Jan Jäässkeläinen & Ari Luukinen & Antti Sieppi, 2021. "What Are the Priorities of Bureaucrats? Evidence from Conjoint Experiments with Procurement Officials," EconPol Working Paper 63, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    11. Andreas Bernecker & Pierre C. Boyer & Christina Gathmann, 2021. "The Role of Electoral Incentives for Policy Innovation: Evidence from the US Welfare Reform," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 26-57, May.
    12. Lergetporer, Philipp & Woessmann, Ludger, 2023. "Earnings information and public preferences for university tuition: Evidence from representative experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    13. Bowen, T. Renee & Krasa, Stefan & Hwang, Ilwoo, 2020. "Agenda-Setter Power Dynamics: Learning in Multi-Issue Bargaining," CEPR Discussion Papers 15406, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. T. Renee Bowen & George Georgiadis & Nicolas S. Lambert, 2019. "Collective Choice in Dynamic Public Good Provision," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 243-298, February.
    15. Bowen, T. Renee & Georgiadis, George & Lambert, Nicolas S., 2015. "Collective Choice in Dynamic Public Good Provision: Real versus Formal Authority," Research Papers 3346, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    16. Ewald, Jens & Sterner, Thomas & Sterner, Erik, 2022. "Understanding the resistance to carbon taxes: Drivers and barriers among the general public and fuel-tax protesters," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    17. Vincent Anesi & Mikhail Safronov, 2021. "Cloturing Deliberation," DEM Discussion Paper Series 21-03, Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg.
    18. Jingjing Zeng & Guihua Huang, 2024. "Bureaucratic biases in trust of expert policy advice: a randomized controlled experiment based on Chinese think tank reports," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 305-351, June.
    19. Qian, Jinbao & Li, Linmu, 2024. "“Laboratory nationalism”: Policy innovation in China," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    20. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth, 2023. "Beliefs about Racial Discrimination and Support for Pro-Black Policies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(1), pages 40-53, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    policy experiments; randomized controlled trials; voters; politicians; public policy; survey experiment; conformism;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_11194. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.